What makes you think that the ability to sideload apps would somehow affect your ability to exclusively use "one official source of signed, validated apps for my phone."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unauthorized App Store Cydia Sues Apple for Anticompetitive Behavior
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ford requires you to buy their oil, or no warranty. Just don't buy a Ford then, right?
I'm well past done with sympathizing with anyone who complains about something they bought and will buy again next year, despite knowledge of all the viable options they have. If someone really doesn't know better, that's different.
Last edited:
Appmakers start distributing on other stores exclusively.
If they don't pass Apple's rules those apps wouldn't be on the app store in the first place. That makes no sense, as you're arguing you would have to go to alternative app stores to obtain apps that you wouldn't have been able to obtain on the app store in the first place..
They pass Apple's rules now, and once that restriction is lifted, they will distribute themselves and stop caring about the rules. And if the alternate stores have their own rules, the stores will have their own wars of exclusivity and such. We've seen it all play out on the PC.
No intelligent developer is going to remove their app from the store already installed on 100% of iPhones to move to one with a fraction of that, just to skirt an Apple rule that they’re already following anyway. One of the draws of iOS for developers is the larger amounts of money their users spend than Android users and they largely lose that benefit by not having an offering on the App Store.
I could see a scenario where a developer has an App Store version that follows Apple’s rules and another version on another App Store that does things that Apple wouldn’t allow in the App Store version. But just like before, you wouldn’t have access to that version in the first place.
Yes they would. Epic would be first; they already got banned entirely. Then whoever is second most likely to leave would follow, probably first to wherever Epic goes. I mean, nobody distributes on the Mac App Store even though every Mac has it.
Because every Mac also has Safari, which for most people, has always been how they got software on their computer. It’s called inertia. Similarly, inertia would still drive most developers and consumers to the App Store.
Also it’s hilarious that you mention Epic. They’re no longer on the App Store because of Apple’s current policies. Not sure how you think that point works for you rather than against you.
Everyone who keeps defending Apple saying its their Phone and they can do what they want... YEAH! That is the problem!!
Its not just about what some of Apple's customers want (though that should be important to them), its what Apple's platform developers (third party companies providing apps/services on the iPhone) want. Don't kid yourself... if developers in mass decided not play Apple's games anymore, and the only thing you could run on Apple's hardware was Apple's software, no one would be buying their hardware.
BUT, there isn't another market for them to move to because it wouldn't be beneficial for anyone, customers or developers, for their to be more platforms to support or jump back and forth on, especially at the prices of these devices and the vendor lock in practices.
That is generally why its better to have regulation for these situations that exist.
Its not just about what some of Apple's customers want (though that should be important to them), its what Apple's platform developers (third party companies providing apps/services on the iPhone) want. Don't kid yourself... if developers in mass decided not play Apple's games anymore, and the only thing you could run on Apple's hardware was Apple's software, no one would be buying their hardware.
BUT, there isn't another market for them to move to because it wouldn't be beneficial for anyone, customers or developers, for their to be more platforms to support or jump back and forth on, especially at the prices of these devices and the vendor lock in practices.
That is generally why its better to have regulation for these situations that exist.
Last edited:
Apple could satisfy people with either view point just by making some more things optional, or up to the end user.
The iOS App Store does not exist for them (the developers).
It exists for us (the consumers).
Every iPhone has Safari too. Inertia means nothing after a few years.
Epic would be the first to set up a separate app store like they already did on PC, seeing that they're willing to abandon the App Store even when there's no alternative. Used to be that PC games were all on Steam, which made things easy, but now everyone is siloing their stuff off on separate inferior stores just to gain control. Same with video streaming. Same would happen with iPhone apps.
There are three parties involved in the store: consumers, Apple, and developers. I don't know how you can say who it exists for other than all three.
Last edited:
I see buying an iphone as akin to joining a union. Yes, there are some annoying limitations and idiosyncrasies with living in the Apple ecosystem, but as a whole, it gives us customers a collective voice to force app makers to behave.
This is the one key reason why I view certain constraints as a necessary evil, and am opposed to iOS being opened up to competing app stores. Rival app stores potentially mean a divided user base, with the balance of power shifting to app developers.
You will find me a fervent advocate of the current walled nature of the iOS App Store. I like that by using us as leverage, Apple is able to force app developers to adhere to certain policies, such as updating their apps for new features, to support certain privacy measures, be strict about app background usage, enforce a minimal level of quality, and generally just invest in the improvements that Apple forces.
Why? Because I am first and foremost an apple product user (in that I am far more likely to stick with my apple devices than switch platforms / devices just so I can continue using their app or service), so the developer will jump through whatever hoop he has to in order to gain access to me.
This is why I paid for an iphone over a cheaper alternative. This is why I give Apple Carte Blanche to use me as a bargaining chip to armtwist developers (if necessary) into implementing their app features in a manner that is in my best interests as the end user, and not just what may be advantageous or convenient for them as app developers.
Because this is what results in the best user experience for me as an iOS user.
I will also end by stating that the app industry could not have selected two worse candidates to fight on their behalf than Epic and Cydia. Epic openly and flagrantly flaunted App Store rules and because this isn’t some scrappy underdog, Apple has no qualms about going thermonuclear on them.
Meanwhile, Cydia’s entire business model and basis for existing hinges around exploiting any security holes it can find in iOS. And I think you will be hard pressed to find a justifiable reason to have Apple deliberately leave those exploits unpatched just so a small portion of iOS users can continue to jailbreak their devices.
I doubt these companies are going to attract much sympathy to their cause. When they lose, and they will, Apple will feel emboldened by its victory and have even less of an incentive to make concessions to developers because its legal victory will stand as a symbol of its unassailable authority over iOS.
These lawsuits have all but sealed the fates of every iOS app developer. They just don’t know it yet.
1. Cyndia could and should control pirated software going onto their platforms if they cared; they don't. And Chrome does not download from Pirate Bay, that is not how it works and a bad comparison; so no Chrome would not be responsible.
2. How do you draw a conclusion that piracy is Apple's fault since it does not allow Cyndia on it's App Store. Jailbreaking is not piracy and you can do with your phone what you want within the limits of what's available. But Jailbreaking is an entry point for viruses and malware so of course Apple is going to patch that entry point which makes Jailbreaking harder; that's the way security works to protect your information. Allowing other trashy dumping ground App Stores that don't care about malware, viruses and piracy like Cyndia does not become Apple's fault but it becomes their problem. They would then be responsible to try and clean the malware and viruses up with no revenue from the sources generating the problem.
You as a consumer have choices, Microsoft fell so they are out (that's capitalism), Google has Android on multiple confusing platforms and if you stray from the name brands good luck, and Apple has their closed eco system. You don't like Apple, pick an android device. You don't like the Mac products, pick a Windows offering or Chromebook if you dare want google tracking every last key click. Developers may whine, but they are making a boat load of money off the platform or it would not be what it is today; they enable Apple and Apple them to be what it is. The whole tussle with Fortnite is an example and if the consumer community starts to move to android devices because of things like this Apple will have to change their tune; that's a free market. This world has rules, follow them or find another place to play. You have choices and one of them is not Cyndia on an Apple iOS device.
In fact, Cyndia had never been an option on an iOS device without first "Jailbreaking" which does not provide evidence that Apple allowed it and then pushed them out with their own product offering; which would then be a monopoly. They where never allowed in the sandbox from the start and people still lined up outside the stores to buy it; remember those days..... Cyndia does not have any legal ground to stand on after "surviving" for the last 12 years. Go buy a jail breakable device if you want to keep using Cyndia, or get an Android device.
Oh by the way, did you know Amazon Fire tablets use Android OS but they have locked down their version of it to just the Amazon App Store to protect it's users from malware and viruses unless you Jailbreak it and install other app stores? What a monopoly, someone should sue them! Being uninformed what you are buying is a reason to return a product and get something else, not a reason to whine and sue someone; stop whining, I hate whining and then go get a life and do something worthwhile like invent a whole entire ecosystem people want to use and if you fail you don't exist anymore. Ah capitalism.
It would seem that as an internet access point manufacturer Apple sees itself as a gatekeeper for both businesses and consumers. In this role Apple feels it deserves to benefit financially from any profitable internet activity accessed through its access points. A bigger question for gvt to arbitrate is whether any platform has the right to play that role. And in the meantime, you’re right, people can choose whether or not to support such a highly regulated model. What Apple has also done is a great job of creating a popular App platform that rewards developers! It think the main issue businesses are having is the extent of control & regulation Apple is exercising over them through App Store policies and their toll system. You might believe they have a right to that privilege and others might feel they don’t. It would be similar if, say Verizon, wanted to impose tolls upon and regulate business policies for all businesses accessed through their network. What if they decided that all retail transactions with websites/apps should go through a special payment system of theirs while they charge a percentage fee. Any company can push for whatever they want but there is also something called “push back.”
If my water company, electric company did what you hypothesize Verizon would do (impose arbitrary fees) there probably would be some eye brows raised. If Verizon did it, I would move my business.
Apple's business model is 13 years old and while hasn't changed, has become more granular. If one doesn't like Apple policies, procedures and regulation, there are many manufacturers in the smartphone space to choose from.
Microsoft wasn’t in trouble for making IE the default browser. The issue was Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop OS’s and then abused that power by colluding and bullying OEM’s to install Windows and only windows prior to shipping at threat of sanctions. Microsoft didn’t manufacture any hardware back then.
Apple control the entire stack from hardware to software. They aren’t colluding with 3rd parties or bullying other manufacturers into installing iOS on their hardware.
In order to claim that they are abusing their monopoly power, you first need to define the relevant market. In this case, Cydia and Epic are trying to claim that iOS app distribution is the relevant market but this isn’t the case as it’s too narrow a definition. Smartphone App distribution is the relevant market and Apple do not have a monopoly here.
A manufacturer is expected to have a monopoly on their own products and it’s not illegal to do so.
Being ahead due to having a better product or service or having better business acumen isn’t against anti-trust laws.
Anti-trust laws specifically look at harms to customers/ consumers....that is the end user. Devs are not the end users of these devices. Now you have to ask yourself this...why has Apple got 50% market share when they ONLY sell premium devices? They don’t give away their devices with the OS preinstalled like many other manufacturers (this could be an anti-trust issue).
The end user knowingly PAYS a premium for the Apple device and experience. How can you claim harm to a consumer when there’s a crap ton of other, cheaper choices (some are even free, or close to it)?
Apple customers, of which I am one, knowingly pay a premium for a differentiated product. I choose Apple exactly because of the increased privacy and security. I choose Apple because of a single marketplace to purchase my Apps - a single entity has my personal details and credit card info. A single point of contact if anything goes wrong. A single list of my subscription. A single point of failure instead of a large security surface area for potential hackers.
I DO NOT WANT a Microsoft store, an epic store, an Adobe Store, a Readlle Store, a Google Store, a Nintendo Store, an EA store etc, etc. This is a TERRIBLE user experience where I would have to change my credit card number with each of them when it expires, each of them when I change an address or email. I would have to track down the right store and relevant page to change/ cancel a subscription. I would have multiple points of contact for support issues and my personally identifiable information is spread across a large surface area. Not all of these developers will have the same privacy policies (so some of my data may be sold), and some of the smaller devs may not have the infrastructure/ expertise/ desire that Apple does to secure my details. I can get all this by choosing a manufacturer that uses android as it’s OS yet I CHOOSE to pay more to avoid this mess.
Apple is a premium brand that prides itself on it’s reputation for user experience, privacy and security. It differentiates itself from IT’S competition in exactly that way and is highly successful EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THIS.
By trying to enforce these changes on Apple, the consumers who purchase Apple products because of their differentiation WILL BE HARMED.
TLDR:
Apple is a monopoly on their own products.
This is expected and isn’t illegal.
The relevant antitrust market is smartphone app distribution, not iOS app distribution.
Apple isn’t colluding or abusing it‘s monopoly position.
Apple has the market share through user CHOICE, not abuse.
Antitrust law considers harm to the consumer.
There is no harm to the consumer, as they choose Apple specifically.
Many other manufacturers are available at substantially cheaper prices.
Antitrust laws will be unlikely to change anything as Apple’s business practice is exactly what differentiates them from their competition, and consumers freely choose them.
Last edited: